This is sorta an update on what could happen during closing statements:

"Jurors are going to hear more about patterns – patterns of alleged molestation by Jackson and patterns of alleged extortion and manipulation by the alleged victim and his mother. And of course both sides will hammer away at the credibility of the other side's witnesses", Cohen said.

MY COMMENT: If the prosecution is going to try to convince the jury that Michael is guilty of these charges by only focusing on the 1108 evidence, then that is obviously an act of desperation.

I think I made my point better about this evidence in one of my jounal entrys.

[b]MY COMMENT: If the prosecution is going to try to convince the jury that Michael is guilty of these charges by only focusing on the 1108 evidence, then that is obviously an act of desperation.

[/b]

Rem: that the jury cannot convict MJ of molestation just because they believe that he comitted the PAST acts (NOT). If they come up and say we find Michael guilty of blah because he did it in the 1990's to Chandler or something like that...the judge is gonna say that they are not trying THAT "case" but this one. Get what I mean?

My point is that the pros. is really stupid if they think that Melville will pass that from the jurors, even if they DO believe he did it in the past but not to Gavin. (The cannot do that, it's not a reason)

Yeah, 1108 is to show pattern of propensity, but that doesn't really give the jurors a chance to convict Michael of the recent trash! Am I right? Well, do you guys get what I am trying to say?

Rem: that the jury cannot convict MJ of molestation just because they believe that he comitted the PAST acts (NOT). If they come up and say we find Michael guilty of blah because he did it in the 1990's to Chandler or something like that...the judge is gonna say that they are not trying THAT "case" but this one. Get what I mean?

My point is that the pros. is really stupid if they think that Melville will pass that from the jurors, even if they DO believe he did it in the past but not to Gavin. (The cannot do that, it's not a reason)

Yeah, 1108 is to show pattern of propensity, but that doesn't really give the jurors a chance to convict Michael of the recent trash! Am I right? Well, do you guys get what I am trying to say?

Meant to say this yesterday regarding Sneddon apparently not going to be the one giving the closing statements for the prosecution. I had to laugh cause he really did a lousy job in opening statements - and most people - for or against - said that Mez did a better job laying it out for the jury. Sneddon probably realizes that he sucks as a prosecutor and that he probably wouldn't do any better trying to put together a good closing - tying together all of the garbage - just picture his "flow charts" or whatever to corraberate the testimony given - kinda reminds me of the "magic bullet" theory in the Kennedy assassination. He is too much of a bumbling idiot to finish the job so he is passing it along to one of his partners in crime. Too bad, I really wanted to see him Snivelling one more time.

Originally posted by AlbameliaRem: that the jury cannot convict MJ of molestation just because they believe that he comitted the PAST acts (NOT). If they come up and say we find Michael guilty of blah because he did it in the 1990's to Chandler or something like that...the judge is gonna say that they are not trying THAT "case" but this one. Get what I mean?

My point is that the pros. is really stupid if they think that Melville will pass that from the jurors, even if they DO believe he did it in the past but not to Gavin. (The cannot do that, it's not a reason)

Yeah, 1108 is to show pattern of propensity, but that doesn't really give the jurors a chance to convict Michael of the recent trash! Am I right? Well, do you guys get what I am trying to say?

The judge said that if they believe the 1108 evidence the jurors can use it as reason to believe he had a predisposition to commit these crimes.

The judge said that if jurors determine Jackson has such a history, "you may but are not required to infer that the defendant had a predisposition" to commit the crimes alleged in the current case. But he told the jurors "that is not sufficient in itself to prove he committed the crimes charged."

Originally posted by AlbameliaRem: that the jury cannot convict MJ of molestation just because they believe that he comitted the PAST acts (NOT). If they come up and say we find Michael guilty of blah because he did it in the 1990's to Chandler or something like that...the judge is gonna say that they are not trying THAT "case" but this one. Get what I mean?

Hmmm... OK here's what I think:
There would be no way for the judge to know whether or not the jury sentences MJ because of the 93 allegations. The jury deliberations are held in the presence of no one else.

Besides, the 93 allegations are not the whole case, and the jury knows that. They know they are not allowed to base their judgement ONLY on the 93 allegations. Even if one juror does so, there are still 11 others to balance him/her. By law, the jurors MUST deliberate and say what they think, and I cannot believe that they would ALL base their judgement only on that.

Normally, the jurors will do everything they can to avoid a hung jury, and that's why deliberations take such a long time. The goal is an unanimous verdict. It's not the majority of the votes that decides of the guilt or innocence of the accused. I would suppose a hung jury would happen only after very long deliberations. We all agree that there is no way MJ will be clearly convicted. At this point, it's quite clear: the reasonable doubt threshold was not reached, and there is definitely no evidence. So I think a unanimous conviction is not possible. Which leaves 2 possibilities: full acquittal or hung jury. My guess is that if the deliberations are long, then that's because there's the possibility of a hung jury, because it indicates that the jurors cannot reach an agreement. If they are short, then it's a very good sign for MJ that he would be totally acquitted because they all easily agree, or that he will only be convicted for the new alcohol charge (I almost typed: kind of a slap on the wrist).

At this point, I am stressed out and a little scared, just like Michael, I'd imagine (see Raymone Bain's comments about how he felt today)... But I am pretty confident that the verdict will be favorable to Michael. If he is convicted, then it means that the jury is really, REALLY stupid. But again, I cannot imagine that the 12 members of the jury will ALL be assholes.

Now, let's see Mez shine during the closing arguments. Who has the final word? The defense, right? I mean, it's the prosecution first, then the defense, and then the deliberations start right away, correct?

Originally posted by NevaehDreamzThe judge said that if jurors determine Jackson has such a history, "you may but are not required to infer that the defendant had a predisposition" to commit the crimes alleged in the current case. But he told the jurors "that is not sufficient in itself to prove he committed the crimes charged."

That sounds fair to me... Anyway, now that it's been allowed in court, the jury MUST consider the 93 allegations. They may disregard them, but they have to consider them. Still, that's what I was saying: the possible history is not sufficient to find him guilty of the charges. If the prosecution had proved the 93 allegations, it would have been a serious problem, but still not enough to prove the current charges. They didn't prove anything, and I am not even sure that they reached the reasonable doubt threshold, so I don't think it's a huge problem. At best, they confused the jury, that's all.

Originally posted by FrenchyHmmm... OK here's what I think: There would be no way for the judge to know whether or not the jury sentences MJ because of the 93 allegations. The jury deliberations are held in the presence of no one else.

Honey, when they say Michael's guilty of blah-blah, the judge has to be given a reasonable reason!! They cannot just say that! The judge has the last word in the end. If he says "hey, i think that you guys are just wrong and convicting him because you hate Michael and i say he's innocent." It's what the jugde says in the end! :D

Originally posted by NevaehDreamzThe judge said that if they believe the 1108 evidence the jurors can use it as reason to believe he had a predisposition to commit these crimes.

[b]The judge said that if jurors determine Jackson has such a history, "you may but are not required to infer that the defendant had a predisposition" to commit the crimes alleged in the current case. But he told the jurors "that is not sufficient in itself to prove he committed the crimes charged."

"that is not sufficient in itself to prove he committed the crimes charged."~there you go!! They have to have more "evidence" of why. But, there's non, so HA!! :D I dunno about you guys but I think that the judge shuldn't have let in 1108! See, it's so risky to get a fair trial ina ny case!